This quote can literally be used on any of their stupid fightswhy don't these right wing arseholes just mind their own business, stop trying to villainise a community who just want to LIVE, and get a fucking HOBBY!
This quote can literally be used on any of their stupid fightswhy don't these right wing arseholes just mind their own business, stop trying to villainise a community who just want to LIVE, and get a fucking HOBBY!
Remember - it is vastly easier to "solve" a problem that doesn't exist than it is to solve one that does.
I mean, it’s not even POSSIBLE to force a child to change their gender against their will, what with the lengthy process of medical and psychological evaluations, surely?
I mean, it’s not even POSSIBLE to force a child to change their gender against their will, what with the lengthy process of medical and psychological evaluations, surely?
Thank you for getting in touch. We have received a wide range of feedback from those who find the article challenging as well as those who welcome its publication.
The article was carefully considered before publication, went through a rigorous editorial review process and fully complies with the BBC’s editorial guidelines and standards.
Some argue that the article is flawed because it is “based on a survey of 80 people”. The article itself states there is little research in this area; that the survey featured was conducted on social media and is therefore self-selecting; and even the author of the survey admits it may not be a representative sample. Furthermore, there is a link to the detail of the findings which enables the reader to make up their own minds about the replies the sample generated.
But the article is more than just the survey.
The journalist’s work involved months of speaking to many people about the topic and the article includes testimony from a range of different sources and provides appropriate context.
As a public service broadcaster we explore a wide range of issues and perspectives. And we believe it deals with a matter worthy of investigation. We have a strong commitment to impartiality, which means we constantly consider and evaluate which stories to cover and how. Impartiality is fundamental, and includes covering stories on any point of the spectrum of debate.
And stories should be seen not just individually, but in the broader context of our wider coverage.
The piece has prompted many complaints and many appreciations and we will consider all feedback carefully.
THIS. No research or legitimate survey? Sounds ideal for publication!“The article itself states there is little research in this area; that the survey featured was conducted on social media and is therefore self-selecting; and even the author of the survey admits it may not be a representative sample.”
The absurdity of this quote, why include it then!
The journalist’s work involved months of speaking to many people about the topic and the article includes testimony from a range of different sources and provides appropriate context.
funky whos that on your pic plz
Just had a response from my BBC complaint and it’s honestly such a cunty reply!
You know you can escalate the complaint to Ofcom if you feel the BBC hasn't addressed your points or misinterpreted them right?
Ofcom normally doesn't cover online content for other broadcasters, but it does for the BBC - obviously the BBC doesn't publicise this very much, but it's perfectly possible and, as an independent organism from the BBC, Ofcom doesn't have to rate their own homework like the Beeb does when you complain to them.
More info here.
The You're Wrong About podcast have shone a light multiple times on how moral panics relating to rare or imagined issues are much easier to deal with than with the uncomfortable truths of our society.Remember - it is vastly easier to "solve" a problem that doesn't exist than it is to solve one that does.
Over 2 million children below the poverty line? Meh. Saving "our poor children" from being "forcibly transed" by "evil predators"? All over that shit.
The You're Wrong About podcast have shone a light multiple times on how moral panics relating to rare or imagined issues are much easier to deal with than with the uncomfortable truths of our society.
For example, we pay almost disproportionate levels of attention to the idea of predatory strangers in relation to both women and children's safety, even though I am almost certain that on both counts they are more likely to be physically or sexually abused by a member of their own family.
To confront that reality is to destabilise the idea of the nuclear family, which is a cornerstone of our society, of capitalism and of patriarchy. It is far easier to divert attention towards those that challenge those things, even though there is little to no evidence of harm. I've thought for a long time that the reason so many terrible men are so on board with the TERF movement is because every minute that feminists waste talking about trans women is a minute not spent discussing the very real ways in which men negatively impact the lives of women.